Legislature(2023 - 2024)GRUENBERG 120
03/29/2023 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB98 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 98 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 98-STATE OWNERSHIP OF SUBMERGED LAND
1:04:39 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 98, "An Act relating to state ownership of
submerged land underlying navigable water within the boundaries
of and adjacent to federal areas; and providing for an effective
date."
1:04:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAN SADDLER, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor, presented HB 98. He paraphrased the sponsor statement
[included in the committee packet], which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
HB 98 seeks to end the federal government's decades-
long, unjust denial of a fundamental element of
Alaska's statehood: control of navigable waters in
Alaska and ownership of the lands beneath.
The 1959 Statehood Act transferred 105 million acres
of federal land to Alaska. In addition, the U.S.
Constitution and federal law also made the state owner
of navigable waters and the lands beneath them at the
instant of statehood.
Navigable waters are the lakes, rivers and streams
that supported, or could have supported, in-state
travel at the time of Statehood. They provide travel
routes, recreational access, hunting opportunities,
aquatic habitat and more, and represent corridors of
commercial travel critical to Alaska's prosperity. All
other states assumed undisputed control of such lands
and waters inside their borders upon joining the
Union.
Despite their obligation to do so, federal authorities
have dragged their heels in granting Alaska clear
title to its submerged lands. Instead, they've forced
the state to prove the navigability of waterways on a
case-by-case basis at a rate that would take hundreds
of years to conclude.
Enough is enough. HB 98 simply but confidently
declares Alaska's title to the beds of navigable
waters, including those within federal parks, wildlife
refuges, forests and other conservation units, unless
specifically withdrawn before Statehood. It identifies
and enumerates water bodies within federal areas in
which the State has a title interest. And it directs
the Department of Natural Resources to make progress
reports to the Legislature on its continuing effort to
delineate navigable waters in federal areas in Alaska.
The need for this bill is dramatized by the case of
Alaska hunter John Sturgeon, who fought and won two
U.S. Supreme Court decisions clarifying that Alaskans
have the right to use navigable waters inside federal
areas, and that federal regulations do not trump state
ownership, even in conservation units created by the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act in
1980.
1:09:08 PM
MARY JACKSON, Staff, Representative Dan Saddler, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Saddler, prime sponsor,
provided a sectional analysis of HB 98 [included in the
committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Section 1 Amends uncodified law by adding a new
section to describe the purpose of the bill.
Section 2 Amends AS 38.04.062(a) to
Page 2, line 1, revises the phrase "at the time" to
become "on the date", and adds the clause ', including
submerged land underlying navigable water listed in AS
in AS 38.04.063 that is within the boundaries of and
adjacent to federal areas.' Provides clarity that the
State owns all submerged lands under navigable from
the date of statehood, including lands within the
boundaries of sand adjacent to federal lands. AS
38.04.062(a) declares that 'the state owns all
submerged land underlying navigable water to which
title passed to the state at the time the state
achieved statehood under the equal footing doctrine or
43 U.S.C. 1301 - 1315 (Submerged Lands Act of 1953).'
Section 3 Amends AS 38.04.062(d) by (Page 2, line
10), revising the phrase "at the time" to become "on
the date", and adds the following sentence: 'The
commissioner shall conduct ongoing research to
identify submerged land underlying navigable water
within the boundaries of and adjacent to federal areas
to determine state title to corresponding submerged
land underlying navigable water.'
Section 4 amends AS 38.04.062(c) by revising the
phrase "at the time" to become "on the date".
Section 5 amends AS 38.04.062(d) by referencing the
list of navigable waters described fully in new AS
38.04.063 and revises the phrase "at the time" to
become "on the date".
Section 6 - Amends AS 38.04.062(e) by inserting the
clause '(b) or (c) of (new section 3 and 4).'
Subsection (e) operates as a disclaimer for
determinations of navigability by the DNR
commissioner, providing that they do not create an
interest in real property, may not be recorded, and do
not constitute final agency action. Because the
proposed edits to AS 38.04.062 create new obligations
for the DNR commissioner concerning navigable waters
in federal areas, which may include navigability
determinations made because of administrative or
judicial proceedings, '(b) or (c) of' was inserted
before 'this section' to distinguish the
commissioner's non-binding determinations from
determinations that have binding effect.
Section 7 amends by revising the phrase "at the
time" to become "on the date".
Section 8 - Adds new subsections (h) - (j) to AS
38.04.062 that creates an obligation on DNR to report
annually to the legislature. Subsection (h) requires
the commissioner to submit an annual report to the
legislature by the first day of each regular session
identifying navigable waters within the boundaries of
and adjacent to federal areas that are not listed in
AS 38.04.063(b) and any modifications or changes to
navigable waters within the boundaries of and adjacent
to federal areas that have been previously identified
and listed in AS 38.04.063(b) Subsection (i) provides
that the commissioner's failure to include or identify
navigable waters in accordance with the requirements
of AS 38.04.062 does not relinquish any state right in
the submerged lands underlying those navigable waters.
Subsection (i) is intended to preserve the state's
rights to submerged lands. Subsection (j) provides
that a navigability determination of the commissioner
is based on evidence consistent with the definition of
'navigable water' at AS 38.04.062(g) and consideration
of the factors listed in AS 38.04.062(j)(1-4).
Section 9 - Amends AS 38.04 by adding a new section AS
38.04.063 concerning state ownership of submerged
within federal areas. This section makes clear that
since statehood, that the State owns, claims,
occupies, possesses, manages, and controls all
submerged lands underlying navigable waters listed in
(b) of this new section of statute, except as provided
under AS 38.04.062(f). It further identifies navigable
waterbodies that are currently known within the
boundaries of and adjacent to federal areas. This
section was drafted to model existing AS 19.30.400
which codifies state claims of rights-of-way granted
under former 43 U.S.C. 932 (Revised Statute 2477).
Page 4 to page 87.
Section 10 - Amends AS 38.04.910 by adding new
paragraphs for definitions, renumbering existing
definitions, and adding proposed definitions for
'federal areas,' 'mean high water,' 'mean high water
line,' 'ordinary high water mark,' and 'submerged
land.'
Section 11 repeals existing 38.04.06(g) which is
current definition.
Section 12 - Amends the uncodified law of the state to
add a new section providing that Section 9 of the bill
is retroactive to January 3, 1959. This bill will
require a special vote of two-thirds of the members of
each house because the proposed retroactive effective
date for this section varies from the standard
language providing for an effective date 90 days after
enactment.
Section 13 - Provides for an immediate effective date
under AS 01.10.070(c).
1:13:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER introduced Mr. Sturgeon to provide
invited testimony.
1:14:07 PM
JOHN STURGEON, President, Safari Club Alaska, paraphrased the
following prepared remarks [included in the committee packet],
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
The Safari Club International Alaska Chapter and Kenai
Peninsula Chapter support House Bill 98 STATE
OWNERSHIP OF SUBMERGED LAND.
Founded in 1971, Safari Club International is the
country's leading hunter rights advocate and
additionally promotes worldwide wildlife conservation.
SCI's approximately 50,000 members and 200 Chapters
represent all 50 of the United States as well as 106
other countries. The Safari Club International Alaska
Chapter (SCI AK) and Kenai Peninsula Chapter (KPSCI)
are 501c4 conservation non-profit corporations. SCI AK
was established in Alaska in 1977, and currently has
670 members. Our joint mission statement is "First for
Hunters - First for Wildlife."
HB 98 asserts that, by operation of law, submerged
lands under navigable waters in areas managed by
federal agencies were conveyed to the state from the
United States pursuant to the Equal Footing Doctrine
of the U.S. Constitution, the federal Submerged Lands
Act, and the Alaska Statehood Act. Since statehood,
navigability determinations have been made through
administrative processes and litigation brought by the
state pursuant to the federal Quiet Title Act. This
bill is intended to bring clarity to state ownership
of submerged lands in federal areas and to claim,
occupy, and possess all such submerged lands as state
sovereign property.
Having navigable waters under State management is
critical to the people of Alaska. Under state
management Alaskans will actually be able to access
and use these resources whereas, under federal
management, that will always be in question. We will
never be able to predict what regulations ever-
changing administrations will implement. After 13
years, $1.6 million, and two unanimous U.S. Supreme
Court decisions (Sturgeon v. Frost I & II) it should
be clear to the Federal Government that Alaska has the
right to manage all navigable waters within the state.
Unfortunately, the feds are ignoring the will of the
court and not acknowledging the right of the State to
manage its navigable waters. To date, the feds have
only approved the transfer of 9% of the State's
navigable waters since Statehood.
We thank Representative Saddler for introducing HB 98
and fully support the legislature's efforts to bring
submerged landsand therefore navigabilityunder state
control.
1:18:13 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
1:19:31 PM
JIM WALKER, Section Chief, Public Access Assertion and Defense,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), directed attention to a
PowerPoint presentation, titled "State Ownership of Submerged
Lands," dated 3/29/23.
1:21:07 PM
MR. WALKER outlined the navigable waters issue on slide 2, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
• Alaska holds an estimated 800,000 miles of navigable
rivers
• Alaska holds an estimated 30 million acres of
navigable lakes
Alaska owns the submerged lands beneath every
navigable in fact river and lake, and beneath tidally
influenced waters in the state, unless a valid pre
statehood withdrawal EXPLICITLY defeats state title
• In Federal Conservation System Unit areas created in
Alaska post statehood, the submerged lands beneath
navigable in fact and tidally influenced waters are
State owned lands
1:23:43 PM
MR. WALKER continued to slide 3, which listed the following
federal areas where the State of Alaska owned submerged lands
[original punctuation provided]:
• National Park Service: Noatak National Preserve
(NPr), Kobuk Valley National Park (NP), Bering Land
Bridge NPr, Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP)
(ANILCA additions), Wrangell St. Elias NPP, Glacier
Bay NPP, Katmai NPP, Kenai Fjords NP, Gates of the
Arctic NPP, Lake Clark NPP, Yukon Charley Rivers NPr,
etc.
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Becharof National
Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Innoko NWR, Izembek NWR, Kanuti
NWR, Kenai NWR, Kodiak NWR, Koyukuk NWR, Nowitna NWR,
Selawik NWR, Tetlin NWR, Togiak NWR, Yukon Delta NWR,
Yukon Flats NWR, etc.
• U.S. Forest Service: Tongass National Forest,
Chugach National Forest
Bureau of Land Management: Beaver Creek Wild and
Scenic River (WSR), Birch Creek WSR, Fortymile River
WSR, Gulkana River WSR, Unalakleet River WSR, Delta
River WSR, etc.
1:28:34 PM
MR. WALKER highlighted the status of efforts to clear title from
1959 to present on slide 4, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
The federal government acknowledges Alaska's clear
title to its submerged lands beneath navigable in fact
and tidally influenced rivers and lakes in only:
• 9 percent of 800,000 river miles of submerged lands
under state owned rivers
• 16 percent of 30,000,000 acres of submerged lands
under state owned lakes
1:30:53 PM
MR. WALKER said a primary impetus for the bill was Sturgeon v.
Frost, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that
federal regulations did not supersede the State of Alaska (SOA)
ownership and management of navigable waters in Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) Conservation System
Units (CSUs), as outlined on slide 5.
1:31:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH inquired about the acronym "CSU."
MR. WALKER responded, "Conservation System Unit (CSU)." He said
CSU was another way to describe federal areas in the state that
were specifically created by the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (ANILCA).
1:32:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY questioned why the bill was necessary if the
state owned the submerged land and navigable waters.
MR. WALKER explained that the federal government was typically
favored in litigation if the ownership of land was ambiguous.
He emphasized that the bill would call the question on water
deemed ambiguous by the federal government and compel a decisive
response. He expressed his hope that if HB 98 were to pass,
companion legislation would be put forward by Alaska's federal
delegation that encompassed all the work associated with the
bill.
1:35:33 PM
MR. WALKER, in response to a follow-up question from
Representative Gray, opined that it was his team's duty to
intervene between the federal government and individual citizens
whenever possible. He indicated that if someone, in reliance on
the list [of submerged lands], chose to recreate in a manner
that was acceptable under state law and was challenged by some
federal law enforcement agency, the state would have the right
to involve itself in that litigation and to vindicate those
rights on behalf of all Alaskans.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY stated, "It makes sense to me that we would
have an expectation that our federal delegation would need to do
some work, since basically, we're asking the federal government
to do something." He asked whether that was correct.
MR. WALKER confirmed that the goal was for the federal
government to follow the law that was established in cases, such
as Sturgeon v. Frost. He added that the bill would give
explicit definition to the abstract concept that Alaska owned
all the submerged lands.
1:39:18 PM
DANNY HOVANCSEK, Public Access Specialist, DNR, resumed the
presentation on slide 6, explaining the numerous interrelated
assertions of state ownership authority that formed the
statehood defense of navigable waters.
1:41:40 PM
MR. HOVANCSEK outlined the codification in the proposed
legislation on slide 7, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
1. Codifies State of Alaska (SOA) ownership,
management and control of navigable waters and
submerged lands within federal areas not covered by a
valid pre statehood withdrawal explicitly defeating
state title
2. Lists specific navigable waters and submerged lands
in federal areas statewide belonging to SOA
3. Enshrines foundational elements of relevant case
law to guide in navigability determinations
4. Establishes annual reporting requirement to
legislature
1:43:42 PM
MR. HOVANCSEK continued to detail the proposed codification on
slide 8, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
1. Codifies SOA ownership, management and control of
navigable waters and submerged lands within federal
areas not covered by a valid pre statehood withdrawal
explicitly defeating state title
Underscore state ownership, management and control of
lands owned by the state since statehood
Clarify and educate: Clearly enumerates the extent of
state management authority within federal boundaries
Increases public understanding and aids in
management
Correlates with publicly maintained records and
maps
Reflect reality: Accurately depicts land ownership
and state boundaries with ongoing quality control
1:46:25 PM
MR. HOVANCSEK proceeded to explain the proposed codification on
slide 9, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
2. Lists specific navigable waters and submerged lands
in federal areas statewide belonging to SOA
First phase: All NPS and USFS areas statewide plus
Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge
Second phase: Remaining USFWS refuges
Third phase: All BLM lands
Fourth phase: Ongoing process of clarification,
modification and amendment
Framework for proposed statute is based upon RS 2477
Right-of-Way codification project in 1990s [AS
19.30.400].
1:49:36 PM
MR. HOVANCSEK discussed and contrasted the map on slide 10,
depicting state-owned navigable waters federally acknowledged to
date, with the map on slide 11 showing state-owned navigable
waters after proposed codification.
1:51:02 PM
MR. HOVANCSEK discussed and contrasted the map on slide 12,
depicting Noatak and Kobuk Valley National Parks federally
acknowledged navigable waters, with the map on slide 13 showing
Noatak and Kobuk Valley National Parks navigable waters after
codification.
1:53:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY inquired about the value of having state-
ownership of submerged land.
MR. HOVANCSEK said ownership, as it related to Mr. Sturgeon,
decreed the ability for managers to dictate the use of that
land. He provided several examples, such as the type of boats,
generators, and docks that could be used on the land.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY considered the example of a dock surrounded
by federal navigable water and asked whether both the state and
federal government would require an application in that
instance.
MR. HOVANCSEK said it would depend on the exact nature of the
dock. He added that the bill sought to ensure Alaska's seat at
the table for these important conversations.
1:56:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked whether other states were similarly
inundated by the federal government. Additionally, she asked
how the federal government would benefit from ownership of the
submerged lands.
MR. HOVANCSEK emphasized that these lands had been owned by
Alaskans since statehood, reiterating that the benefit to
Alaskans was resource control. He said that other states had
not faced similar experiences, due partially, to the young
history of Alaska's statehood. He conveyed that Alaska's
submerged lands were more attractive, and its problems were more
complicated, indicating that the state faced stronger opposition
based on the quality and quantity of the resources at hand.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD commended the presenters for their
commitment to Alaska.
1:59:21 PM
MR. WALKER resumed the presentation on slide 14, which further
outlined the codification as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
3. Enshrined foundational elements of relevant case
law to guide in navigability determinations
Susceptibility criteria to guide DNR in making
navigability determinations including, but not limited
to:
o Watercraft Type: Round raft, Canoe, Jon boat, Jet
boat
.notdef Alaska v. Ahtna, Inc., 891 F. 2d 1401 (9th Cir.
1989) (Gulkana River).
o Susceptibility: Documented modern day use is
sufficient
.notdef Alaska v. United States, Case No. 3:12 cv 00114
SLG (D. Alaska 2016) (Mosquito Fork ( Fortymile )
o Navigability doesn't require a clear channel, two
way traffic, or historical evidence if the river is
susceptible to navigation.
.notdef PPL Montana, LLC v. Montana, 132 S. Ct. 1215
(2012); Utah v. United States, 403 U.S. 9 (1971);
United States v. Utah, 283 U.S. 64 (1931).
MR WALKER proceeded to discuss proposed codification on slide
15, which read as follow [original punctuation provided]:
3. Enshrines foundational elements of relevant caselaw
to guide in navigability determinations
Section Ten:
o Define geographical scope of legislation
? Post-statehood federally owned lands
o Define key navigability terms for purposes of
legislation including
? Ordinary high-water mark
? Navigability
? Submerged land
? Federal area
2:03:47 PM
MR. WALKER summarized slide 16, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
4. Establishes annual reporting requirement to
legislature
Charges DNR with responsibility to conduct ongoing
navigability research to determine state title to
submerged lands within relevant federal areas
Ensures non-exhaustive codified list best reflects
reality
o Ensures public facing document is accurate
• Further refinement and fine tuning as our quiet
title litigation continues
• Provides leadership to federal authorities and a
path forward to settle ambiguity so that land
management benefiting the public will follow
2:04:18 PM
MR. WALKER concluded the proposed legislation on slide 17, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Alaska's ownership of Submerged Lands beneath
navigable -in -fact and tidally influenced rivers and
lakes is one of the fundamental promises of Statehood.
It's been 64 years. It is time for the Federal
Government to keep its promise to the State of Alaska.
HB 98 is a bold step in that direction.
2:04:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought further clarification on the use
of canoes and asked how the canoe of today had evolved from
those used prior to statehood.
MR. WALKER declined to speak on behalf of his counterparts in
Tennessee, Georgia, or South Carolina when they pursued the
navigability litigation. He acknowledged that maybe, canoes
should have been asserted as a traditional water craft. He
pointed out that the Supreme Court, as well as the Circuit Court
of Appeals' decisions all supported the use of canoes. He
conveyed that Alaska had a strong tradition of utilizing canoes
for various occupations and endeavors in 1959.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how other states would be impacted
by Alaska prevailing in this endeavor.
MR. WALKER submitted that western state governments would
particularly benefit from Alaska prevailing on these issues.
2:07:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked to what extent the definition of
navigable waters would impact the other treaties concerning the
federal government.
MR. WALKER noted that there was a federal withdrawal for the
boundary with Canada, which included the submerged lands. He
discussed the history of trade between Canada and the United
States, which would strengthen the state's case in regard to the
river flowing from Canada through Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the list [of state
ownership of submerged land] in Section 9 of the bill.
MR. WALKR pointed out that Mr. Sturgeon prevailed in Sturgeon v.
Frost because the Nation River had already been determined to be
navigable through litigation. He said the goal of the proposed
legislation was to firmly declare state ownership of submerged
lands, which would benefit anyone facing federal prosecution in
the future, similar to Mr. Sturgeon.
2:12:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked why some water may have been
excluded from the list in Section 9.
MR. WALKER clarified that the list concerned federal areas only.
He said the list would be exponentially longer if it were to
include everything from north to south, and from sea to the
Canadian border.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN considered a scenario in which someone
was to file a mining claim for some portion of the waterway in
Juneau, for example. He asked how the state would respond.
MR. WALKER said any application would be adjudicated on its
merits on a case-by-case basis if the waterway was state-owned
land.
CHAIR VANCE noted that the 2023 Department of Law (DOL) federal
lands and litigation report was included in the committee packet
for reference.
2:15:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON recalled his experience claiming
historic trails and asked how confident DNR was in its
assessment of navigable water.
MR. WALKER said "a river speaks for itself" if it's in its
natural and ordinary condition whereas a trail needs management.
He said he was highly confident that everything on the list was
navigable. He discussed the difference between assessing trails
and rivers.
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON shared an anecdote in which an
individual had posited the navigability of a waterfall-like
waterway on the Copper River because he had successfully
launched a boat on it. He asked how that scenario would be
considered.
MR. HOVANCSEK indicated that the state would assess such a
scenario on a river-by-river basis, as long as the river was in
its natural and ordinary condition.
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON asked how Native lands were considered
in terms of navigability and federal ownership.
MR. WALKER clarified that Native lands were private property and
therefore, beyond the purview of HB 98, which was limited to
federal lands. In response to the scenario posed by
Representative C. Johnson, he confirmed that the navigability
would be determined on a case-by-case basis. He added that the
state could potentially own the submerged lands on rivers
located on Native lands. He said the state was always working
with Native corporations to achieve agreements as to use and
management of those particular waterways.
2:23:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether an assessment had been
conducted on the consequences of the retroactivity clause in
Section 12 of the bill.
RON OPSAHL, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,
offered to follow up with the requested information.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether prior litigation
involving private citizens had been adjudicated in such a way
that could be impacted by the retroactivity clause.
MR. WALKER offered to follow up on the question of
retroactivity. He reminded the committee that the legislation
pertained to federal lands only.
CHAIR VANCE asked why "at the time" was changed to "on the date"
the state achieved statehood in Section 7 of the bill.
MR. OPSAHL shared his understanding that "at the time" would
have referenced a time on the clock, whereas "on the date"
referred to a date on the calendar.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN opined that the reason provided by Mr.
Opsahl was was not substantive. He suspected that there was a
greater reason, such as uniformity with another statute. He
inquired about the true intent of revising the phrase "at the
time" to become "on the date" in Section 7.
MR. OPSAHL offered to follow up on the requested information.
2:27:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether there was a benefit to
determining state ownership of frozen rivers.
MR. WALKR clarified that the determination of title ownership
must be made while the water is in liquid state. He confirmed
that there was a benefit to state ownership of frozen submerged
lands.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether the federal government had
ever intervened in the ability to drive over a frozen waterway.
MR. HOVANCSEK said there was a court case regarding Slop Bucket
Lake that prohibited the state from determining navigability in
its frozen condition. Otherwise, he said this was a nonissue.
MR. WALKER advised checking with federal land managers before
engaging in such activities if there was any uncertainty.
CHAIR VANCE asked Mr. Sturgeon to speak to the benefit of
interfacing with the state versus federal government regarding
navigability.
MR. STURGEON shared a personal anecdote involving his alleged
violation of a regulation concerning hovercrafts. In response
to a prior question regarding the importance of submerged lands,
he shared the example of hunting the gravel bars on large
rivers.
2:33:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the harvesting of resources
on these waterways was impacted by the proposed legislation.
MR. HOVANCSEK stated that the management of fishing was not
impacted by the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN sought to clarify why the harvesting of
fish was not involved.
MR. HOVANCSEK indicated that the state was already regulating
the freshwater fish, as freshwater fish were held in trust by
the state for the general public. Alternatively, a saltwater
species would be federally regulated, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how that came to be the case and
how the state could be certain that in the future, the federal
government would not restrict fishing in waterways that had been
deemed navigable.
MR. WALKER said he was not expert on fish and game law. He
deferred to his colleagues within the Alaska Department of Fish
& Game (ADF&G).
2:37:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether access, regulation, and
taxation of submerged land could be managed by the state if the
bill were to pass.
MR. WALKER acknowledged that the clarity offered by the proposed
legislation would assist in all those issues aside from
taxation.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER said he had misspoken. Rather than
taxation, he said he was interested in regulation and potential
fee structures on state-owned water and asked whether the bill
could be an avenue for exploring that.
MR. WALKR answered yes, the ability to charge fees for the use
of state property was within the legislature's purview.
MR. WALKER, in response to a hypothetical scenario posed by
Representative Eastman, said if there was a pre-statehood
withdraw, it was not included in the legislation; further, he
stated that he was unaware of any management decision made by
the state that would seem at odds with the bill.
2:42:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY shared his understanding that high-water
marks could be impacted by ice jams and tidal changes. He asked
how high water marks were determined.
MR. HOVANCSEK defined "high water mark" as the line on the shore
established by fluctuations of water leaving an impression on
the bank - the evidence for which could be a clear natural line
impressed upon the bank, shelving, change in soil
characteristics, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, or the
presence of litter and debris.
MR. WALKER clarified that ice jams were an exceptional event.
2:45:05 PM
CHAIR VANCE sought final comments from the bill sponsor.
2:45:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said he intended the legislation to
respectfully push the federal government to resolution and to
clarify important aspects of Alaska's sovereignty. He described
the bill as the next step in Alaska's long journey towards
assuming its rightful status as a full-fledged state on equal
footing. He noted that the list [in Section 9 of the bill]
would continue to grow and evolve as DNR continued to make
assertions on navigability, and in doing so, create an
opportunity to bring more Alaska Native names to the numerous
unnamed bodies of water.
2:47:27 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that HB 98 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 98 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 3/29/2023 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/14/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 98 |
| HB 98 - v.A.PDF |
HJUD 3/29/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 98 |
| HB 98 - Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 3/29/2023 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/14/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 98 |
| HB 98 - 40 Mile Letter of Support.pdf |
HJUD 3/29/2023 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/14/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 98 |
| HB 98 - Supporting Document SCI AK SCI Kenai 3.21.23.pdf |
HJUD 3/29/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 98 |
| HB 98 - Dept. of Law Federal Laws & Litigation Report 2023.pdf |
HJUD 3/29/2023 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/14/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 98 |
| HB 98 - DNR DMLW State Ownership of Submerged Lands Presentation 03.29.2023.pdf |
HJUD 3/29/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 98 |